You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

it'd be interesting if Sam had a bad or average year, but the team still made the playoffs. it'd be 2012 like with Christian Ponder at the helm.

to that extent, do you re-sign Bradford because "he took the team to the playoffs"...?

examine what you are saying, instead of using cliched language.

if Bradford has a bad or average year and the team makes the playoffs, then he wasn't the source of the team's success.

That (Bradford playing badly but our still making the playoffs) would be more than likely due to MN's having a "Conan the Barbarian" defense: "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women".

(just trying to butcher as many quotations as I can in one lifetime lol)_________________However, you're right that it did improve a bit. I'm just not sure I trust our coaching staff to develop offensive lineman.

it'd be interesting if Sam had a bad or average year, but the team still made the playoffs. it'd be 2012 like with Christian Ponder at the helm.

to that extent, do you re-sign Bradford because "he took the team to the playoffs"...?

examine what you are saying, instead of using cliched language.

if Bradford has a bad or average year and the team makes the playoffs, then he wasn't the source of the team's success.

I didn't "say" much of anything. I asked a question.

I think its an interesting point because teams tend to view the QB position much differently than other positions. in general, QBs get credited for wins. even if Sam didn't do much to get the team to the playoffs, he's still credited for a large portion of the team success.

And teams tend to overvalue the QB position (Kaepernick/Tannehill Extensions and Trubisky/Goff trades).

So with that all in mind, even with a bad to average year, Sam still could be looking at an extension due to team success instead of his own, even though doing so defies logic._________________

If Bradford is a non factor to the team's success, they aren't going to keep him around.

But Ponder still had 2 more years on his contract, so that could've factored in.

Sam is on his last year with his current contract.

I understand the most sensible approach is to not reward a player who doesn't deserve it. I think most people agree with that.

But there are occasions where this isn't the case. Some QBs get massive amounts of money for doing so little (to some extent, this applies also to Osweiler and Dalton). One could make a strong argument against this line of thinking as well (Grossman, Tebow or 2015 Peyton Manning).

Maybe I'm just worried that with our history, we'll end up doing something stupid. _________________

If Bradford is a non factor to the team's success, they aren't going to keep him around.

But Ponder still had 2 more years on his contract, so that could've factored in.

Sam is on his last year with his current contract.

I understand the most sensible approach is to not reward a player who doesn't deserve it. I think most people agree with that.

But there are occasions where this isn't the case. Some QBs get massive amounts of money for doing so little (to some extent, this applies also to Osweiler and Dalton). One could make a strong argument against this line of thinking as well (Grossman, Tebow or 2015 Peyton Manning).

Maybe I'm just worried that with our history, we'll end up doing something stupid.

What would you consider to be "something stupid"? As in they either give him a big extension undeservedly so, or don't give him an extension and let him go?

Honestly in MY opinion, Bradford is on this team for the future unless his play drops off drastically or he gets injured. I highly doubt his play declines that much, and given his history I'd be more concerned towards an injury derailing his season.

I think even if he underperforms he's likely getting a contract extension if the team reaches the playoffs (and more), so if that's what you're considering to be "something stupid" then I'd say to be prepared for incoming stupidity. The ONLY thing that could possibly change that would be if Teddy Bridgewater makes a miraculous recovery and is just lighting it up on the practice field (to the extent that the Vikings clearly see he is the better option)._________________

We give him a contract he doesn't deserve and then we're stuck with him.

Bradford is pretty average though. Most people list him anywhere from 16-24 overall in QB rankings, and if given enough talent around him he can show flashes of... greatness (maybe a more watered down word would do the trick. Goodness?)._________________

If Bradford is a non factor to the team's success, they aren't going to keep him around.

But Ponder still had 2 more years on his contract, so that could've factored in.

Sam is on his last year with his current contract.

I understand the most sensible approach is to not reward a player who doesn't deserve it. I think most people agree with that.

But there are occasions where this isn't the case. Some QBs get massive amounts of money for doing so little (to some extent, this applies also to Osweiler and Dalton). One could make a strong argument against this line of thinking as well (Grossman, Tebow or 2015 Peyton Manning).

Maybe I'm just worried that with our history, we'll end up doing something stupid.

What would you consider to be "something stupid"? As in they either give him a big extension undeservedly so, or don't give him an extension and let him go?

Honestly in MY opinion, Bradford is on this team for the future unless his play drops off drastically or he gets injured. I highly doubt his play declines that much, and given his history I'd be more concerned towards an injury derailing his season.

I think even if he underperforms he's likely getting a contract extension if the team reaches the playoffs (and more), so if that's what you're considering to be "something stupid" then I'd say to be prepared for incoming stupidity. The ONLY thing that could possibly change that would be if Teddy Bridgewater makes a miraculous recovery and is just lighting it up on the practice field (to the extent that the Vikings clearly see he is the better option).

I had the same thought originally: Unless Bradford plays bad this year, he will be re-signed and be our QB for a while, but with the strides Teddy has made, i'm not so sure. While Sam and his play could be considered a known quantity, if he plays well, he is going to receive an extremely lucrative deal. Teddy, and his knee, are a much less known quantity, but he will come cheaper. If he does continue to recover well, along with Sam having a great year, the team might opt to save some money and gamble further on Teddy. I suppose the team could be willing to accept that risk of having that QB play possibly decrease so long as it saves them money in the interim. I'm not saying they should do one option or the other, but I could see either scenario playing out realistically._________________

"And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts, and I looked and behold, a Pale Horse...

As I believe I've indicated, I think their ultimate desire is that Teddy recover and extend him over Bradford. So, ultimately, regardless of what Bradford does, who gets the extension is fully dependent on Teddy's recovery.

As we've seen with Eli Manning, average is good enough to win the Super Bowl in this league if they get hot at the right time...and there are few arguments that people can make that would convince me that Eli is anything but an average QB (hell, even Joe Flacco won a Super Bowl...and I'd argue that Bradford is better than Flacco)._________________